One reason for moving it out of core is that at some point we will have hbase 3 releases. Right now hbase 3 targeted things are in the master branch. If the feature is not sufficiently ready to be in a release then when the time for HBase 3 releases comes we'll have to do work to pull it out of the release branch. If the feature needs to stay in the core repo that will necessitate that hbase 3 have a branch distinct from the master branch (which may or may not happen anyways). At that point we risk having to do the work to remove the feature from a release branch again come hbase 4.
I think a lot of this is moot if you'd like to start providing patches for the things you've needed to use it. If there are gaps that you think can trip folks up maybe we could label it "experimental" to provide better context for others. On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 07:48 [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:14 PM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:30 PM [email protected] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Inline > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 10:10 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > We are allowed to debate if this should be in the tree or not. Given > > the > > > > lack of interest, as evidenced by incomplete state, lack of release, > > and > > > > lack of contribution, it is more than fair to discuss removal. > > > > > > > > Here is my take: First of all, it is not released. There is no > implied > > > > roadmap or support. Second, there do not seem to be any active > > > maintainers > > > > or volunteers as such. Third, unless someone shows up with more > patches > > > for > > > > it there will be no polish or maturing, there can be no expectations > of > > > > further improvement. > > > > > > > > That said, this is open source. New code contribution will change the > > > > facts as they stand. > > > > > > > > > If there is an agreement upon the direction I am willing to provide > > patches > > > to take this feature forward. > > > > > > > > > > What about the changes you made to make it work? > > > > I'd be interested in patches that take this feature out of core. How hard > > do you think that would be? See the items Duo list above for a start on > > obstacles to tackle? > > > > I am yet to be very familiar with the code to comment on the effort > required to take it out of the core. Backport and bug fixes required very > shallow understanding of the code and only some parts of it. > > I am not very clear on why some strong opinions on moving backup out of the > core? Is there something defined on what should be operator tools? > > Quoting what Duo Zhang said > > You can see the code under the org.apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master > > package, we need to set up log cleaner at master side, and also, > > the LogRollMasterProcedureManager class needs MasterServices(not > > MasterRpcServices), which means it must be used in the same process with > > HMaster. > > . > > > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2020, at 5:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:59 PM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:55 AM [email protected] < > > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Inline. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 9:18 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > [email protected] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I'm afraid it is not easy to be moved to hbase-operator-tools. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> You can see the code under the > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master > > > > >>>> package, we need to set up log cleaner at master side, and also, > > > > >>>> the LogRollMasterProcedureManager class needs MasterServices(not > > > > >>>> MasterRpcServices), which means it must be used in the same > > process > > > > >> with > > > > >>>> HMaster. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> And I'm OK with purging this feature, especially if there is no > > > > >> developer > > > > >>>> who wants to maintain it. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> Is the sole reason to purge this feature is no developer > > volunteering > > > > to > > > > >>> maintain this? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> I'd suggest this feature does not belong in core at all. > > > > >> > > > > >> And some of us have spent time reviewing the feature in the past > and > > > > back > > > > >> then determined it needed lots of finishing work, test, and polish > > -- > > > > none > > > > >> of which it seems to have gotten since commit. > > > > >> > > > > >> You are using it Mallik? Tell us more please. How is it working > for > > > you? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > It has been a decent v1 release for us. As pointed out by others, > > > feature > > > > > should be polished and matured without debating if backup should be > > > part > > > > of > > > > > core or not. Some of notable points are > > > > > > > > > > - Limitations like serial backup set runs per deployment bothered > > us. > > > > > - Minor logging enhancements for debugging, some NPE's, etc > > > > > - Bandwidth limits, incremental backup did not work outright. > > > > > > > > > > Since it is only a couple of months, we might not have seen a lot > of > > > > corner > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> S > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> For me, I suspect that the backup feature could be done more > > > > separately > > > > >>>> with the main cluster. We could use replication to backup the > > WALs, > > > > and > > > > >>> use > > > > >>>> Snapshot and ExportSnapshot to backup the HFiles. The feature > > could > > > be > > > > >>> done > > > > >>>> as a separated project. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Stack <[email protected]> 于2020年11月20日周五 上午10:18写道： > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> It strikes me as work that has been abandoned with no > supporting > > > > >>>> developer. > > > > >>>>> It has had no improvement and few commits other than adjustment > > > > >>> because a > > > > >>>>> backing dependency has changed since original contribution. It > > has > > > > >> not > > > > >>>> been > > > > >>>>> included in a release so has no users as yet. Does anyone use > it > > or > > > > >>> want > > > > >>>>> it? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We have back ported this feature to 2.1.x and has been using for > > last > > > > few > > > > >>> months in few of our deployments. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> If not, I suggest we remove it. I could file an issue for it to > > be > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> added to hbase-operator-tools for some gallant dev to pick up if > > > they > > > > >>>>> wanted to use this backup work? (I could help w/ the > migration). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> What do others think? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> S > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
